We explore real-life reformation here in this informed, online community.
Digital currency replaces physical means of payment such as cash and checks. The handling and managing of physical transactions is more expensive as it requires people rather than a program to manage transactions. As the five big banks control 90% of all deposits–essentially a monopoly– their adoption of digital currency would impose it on all banks.
A digital currency means your money is no longer in your hands. It can be denied you intentionally or accidentally. You no longer will have a cash hoard as a backup. Possibly, if they are permitted to exist, you could collect anonymous debit cards preloaded with specific amounts, but if digital money is to be used for control, their existence is unlikely. Moreover, hackers are as likely to be successful diverting digital money as everything else.
The main destructive element of digital systems is that they remove humans from human contact. Scammers have eliminated the usefulness of a telephone as a device for speaking to another person. Instead, people text. But if caller ID and emails can be compromised, so can texting.
What the digital revolution has given us is total insecurity, isolation, and enormous frustration.
-- PC Roberts, former Asst. Treasury Secretary
Precious in the sight of the LORD Is the death of His godly ones.
Psalm 116:15
Rod Dreher asks, "I don’t understand why the government doesn’t deploy the army and shoot rioters until they stop. Philippe Lemoine, a Frenchman, says it’s not that simple."
Excerpt:
"We have let things rot for so long that, at this point, relying primarily on force to restore order would require a degree of violence far greater than what people realize and what is politically feasible.
It's possible to contain a riot using only moderate force when the number of police officers is high relative to the number of rioters, but when riots are so widespread and involve so many people because you have allowed this kind of things to happen for so long, that's just not possible and you have to use extreme violence to make up for the lack of manpower.
I know people on the Internet will say that it doesn't matter and that we should just do it, but the reality is that most of the people in charge are not prepared to use that kind of force and neither would most ordinary people if they saw ...
Even Marine Le Pen’s recent statements track this line: personal Islamic practice is compatible with the Republic; replacing French law with Sharia is not. French Muslims who are simply citizens practicing their "religious faith" “have no reason to worry” about a Le Pen election victory.
But can one be a practicing Muslim without demanding and practicing Sharia?
